DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted July 18, 2024, November 18, 2024, March 3, 2025, and October 15, 2025, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 9 recites “the other lateral surface of the first part” but this limitation lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear which lateral surface is claimed since there is no previous lateral surface recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 11-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brazier US PG Publication 2008/0289945 in view of Goggin US PG Publication 2016/0146363.
Regarding Claims 1, 12-13, and 16, Brazier discloses a battery cell 30 (meeting Claim 13) comprising a pressure relief mechanism (pressure response member) 10 disposed on a housing plate (terminal contact) 32 of a battery cell and a method for manufacturing a pressure relief mechanism comprising providing a connecting portion located in a peripheral region of the pressure relief mechanism (and disposing it thereof) and connecting it to the housing plate 32 (they are physically touching/connected, Fig 14A, para 0066), providing a first part (flange) 12 (see annotated Fig below), connecting one end of the first part to the connecting portion and extending the other end of the first part 12 obliquely toward an interior of the battery cell, providing a fragile portion in some embodiments (lines of weakness) 15, and providing a second part 14/16 that takes a shape that protrudes toward the interior of the battery cell 30 wherein an outer edge region of the second part 14/16 is connected to the first portion 12 (see entire disclosure and especially Figs 1-3B, 13A-14B and paras 0046- 00052, 0065-0068).
PNG
media_image1.png
343
1023
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Brazier discloses wherein when an internal temperature of gas pressure of the battery cell is less than a preset value, the structure is activated and the central (second) portion 14/16 will reverse and extend upward in the same direction as pressure is applied from the battery container and that the fragile portion can rupture to release pressure (paras 0046-0049) but Brazier does not specifically disclose the fragile portion connected to the extending end of the first part, wherein an outer edge of the second part is connected to the fragile portion, and wherein the fragile portion is squeezed and pressed by the first and or second part. However, in the same field of endeavor (and specifically designed to address issues with the structure of Brazier, see paras 0003-0005 in Goggin), Goggin discloses disposing a pressure relief mechanism on a housing plate of a battery cell (para 0132, “a frustum-shaped rupture disk may be formed into the lid of a battery housing”) and providing a connecting portion (exterior flange) 410 configured to connected to the housing plate (the flat portion would be capable of being connected to a housing plate, para 0099 and Fig. 4H), providing a first part 430, connecting one end of the first part 430 to the connecting portion, and extending the other end of the first part 430 obliquely toward an interior of the battery cell, providing a fragile portion (line of weakness) 435 which is shaped as a groove (see annotated Fig. 4D below, meeting Claim 12) to the extending end of the first part, and a second part 420, taking a shape that protrudes toward the interior of the battery cell, wherein an outer edge region of the second part 420 is connected to the fragile portion 435, wherein when an internal temperature or gas pressure of the battery cell is less than a preset value (e.g. activation pressure, para 0095), the fragile portion 435 would necessarily be squeezed and pressed by the first part 430 and/or the second part 420 since the skilled artisan would understand that any increased pressure generated in the battery cell’s body (e.g. according to pressure P, Fig. 4E and para 0095) would press up on the second part 420 which would squeeze and press on the fragile portion 435.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the pressure relief mechanism of Goggin in the battery cell of Brazier such that the fragile portion is a groove connected to the extending end of the first part, wherein an outer edge of the second part is connected to the fragile portion, and wherein the fragile portion is squeezed and pressed by the first and or second part because this structure is taught by Goggin as a way to improve upon the structure of Brazier such that (as explained in para 0008 of Goggin) the problems suffered by using traditionally scored lines of weakness (e.g. lack of precision of material displacement, premature tearing, residual fold-over of material, fatigue of the weakness line due to normal pressure fluctuations, etc.) can be prevented.
PNG
media_image2.png
276
791
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Brazier modified by Goggin is clear that when the internal temperature or gas pressure of the battery cell is greater than or equal to the first preset value, the second part changes the shape from protruding toward the interior of the battery cell to protruding away from the interior of the battery cell (see “reverse-buckling” explanations in Goggin and at least Figs 13A-B and e.g. paras 0052-0056). Although Brazier modified by Goggin does not recite that the fragile portion is stretched by the second and/or first part, the skilled artisan would expect that given the design of Brazier and Goggin, the weakened/fragile portion would be stretched to some extent in the rupturing process.
Regarding Claims 3 and 17, since the pressure relief mechanism of Brazier modified by Goggin is clearly formed from a single member, and because Goggin refers to “the thickness of the disk” (para 0095), the skilled artisan would expect that a thickness of the first part would be set equal to a thickness of the second part.
Regarding Claim 5, the pressure relief mechanism of Brazier modified by Goggin includes, as part of the second region, a middle region (center part of 420) connected to the outer edge region wherein the middle region is substantially parallel to a position in which the pressure relief mechanism is disposed on the housing plate (see annotated Fig. above).
Regarding Claims 6 and 18, Brazier discloses wherein the fragile portion 15 is formed in the second part using a score line or etched groove (Fig. 3B, para 0048) and the skilled artisan would understand that scoring and etching would form a thinned or thin-walled portion. Further, Goggins teaches in para 0124 that a line of weakness can be formed via traditional methods of e.g. material removal and be placed in another portion of the pressure relief mechanism such as in the second portion, as an obvious design approach, since this location is taught by Brazier. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Further, the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04). The skilled artisan would understand that the thin-walled region would facilitated deformation in the second part. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding Claim 11, Fig. 4A of Goggin shows that a thickness of at least a partial region of the fragile portion 435 is less than a thickness of the first and second parts. This structure is necessarily formed during the method of forming the fragile portion 435 via displacing material.
7. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brazier US PG Publication 2008/0289945 in view of Goggin US PG Publication 2016/0146363, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Mayer US Patent 5,741,606.
Regarding Claim 4, Brazier modified by Goggin discloses the claimed pressure relief mechanism as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Brazier modified by Goggin fails to specifically disclose wherein the internal temperature or gas pressure of the battery cell is greater than or equal to a second present value, the fragile portion is actuated so that the internal pressure of the battery cell is released by the pressure relief mechanism. However, in the same field of endeavor of rupturable pressure relief apparatus design, Mayer discloses a design wherein a flip-burst disk allows for the battery circuit to open at a first pressure (a reversible protective measure) and then if pressure build-up continues, the disk can rupture at a second preset value (see at least col 3, lines 8-33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include in the pressure relief mechanism design of Brazier and Goggin wherein when the internal temperature or gas pressure of the battery cell is greater than or equal to a second preset value, the fragile portion is actuated so that the internal pressure of the battery cell is released by the pressure relief mechanism reinforcing structure on a lateral surface of the first part of Brazier modified by Goggin because Ou teaches that this reinforcing member assists in the prevention of loose pieces formed by the rupture of the rupture disk.
8. Claim 7-10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brazier US PG Publication 2008/0289945 in view of Goggin US PG Publication 2016/0146363, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Ou US Patent 4,404,982.
Regarding Claims 7-8 and 19, Brazier modified by Goggin discloses the claimed pressure relief mechanism as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Brazier modified by Goggin fails to specifically disclose wherein a reinforcing structure is disposed in the first part or that the reinforcing structure comprises a raised reinforcing rib disposed on one lateral surface of the first part. However, in the same field of endeavor of rupturable pressure relief apparatus design, Ou teaches that a rupture disk assembly includes a reinforcing member 74 disposed on the annular flat flange portion (Fig. 4) and that this reinforcing member assists in the prevention of loose pieces formed by the rupture of the rupture disk (see entire disclosure and especially Fig 4 and col 3, lines 45-63 and col 4, lines 47-61). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a reinforcing structure on a lateral surface of the first part of Brazier modified by Goggin because Ou teaches that this reinforcing member assists in the prevention of loose pieces formed by the rupture of the rupture disk. Although the prior art does not specifically call this member a “rib”, since the reinforcing member 74 is relatively narrow compared with the disk size, it can be seen as a rib, lacking any specific definition of the term.
Regarding Claim 9, Brazier modified by Goggin and Ou does not specifically disclose wherein the reinforcing separator further comprises a recessed portion disposed on the other lateral surface of the first part and located at a position corresponding to the reinforcing rib. However, Goggin discloses a reinforcing rib (stiffening structure) 1523 which provides support to the central portion or second part (Figs 15A-C; paras 0124-0125) and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the design of the stiffening (reinforcing) member of Goggin in the combined invention of Brazier, Goggin, and Ou such that the reinforcing separator further comprises a recessed portion disposed on the other lateral surface of the first part and located at a position corresponding to the reinforcing rib because Goggin teaches that this is an effective support for the section of the pressure relief mechanism of the combined prior art and because Ou discloses using support on the first part of the mechanism. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 10, Brazier modified by Goggin and Ou does not specifically disclose wherein the connecting portion is annular and comprise two rectilinear portions and two arc portions that are connected to ends of the two rectilinear portions respectively, and the reinforcing structure is located in the first part corresponding to the rectilinear portions. However, Goggin discloses that the rupture disk can have many different shapes, designed to suit the need of the specific application (see e.g. paras 0128-0129, Figs 18-21) and so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the connection portion to be annular and comprise two rectilinear portions and two arc portions that are connected to ends of the two rectilinear portions respectively, because Goggin discloses that the rupture disk can have many different shapes, designed to suit the need of the specific application, and the reinforcing structure of the combined prior art extends around the entire rupture disk in the embodiment of Fig. 4 of Ou. Accordingly, the reinforcing structure is located in the first part corresponding to the rectilinear portions of Brazier modified by Goggin and Ou.
9. Claim 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brazier US PG Publication 2008/0289945 in view of Goggin US PG Publication 2016/0146363, as applied to Claims 1 and 13, and further in view of Naito US PG Publication 2012/0225335.
Regarding 14-15, Brazier modified by Goggin discloses the claimed battery cell comprising the claimed pressure relief mechanism as described in the rejection of Claims 1 and 13, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Brazier modified by Goggin fails to specifically disclose a battery comprising the battery cell and a device comprising the battery (which is inherently configured to provide electric energy to the device). However, in the same field of endeavor of battery safety vent design, Naito teaches that battery modules are known to comprise battery cells (such as those disclosed by Brazier and Goggin) and that these modules are known to power electric devices (see e.g. 0002-0003). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the battery cell having the pressure relief mechanism of Brazier and Goggin in a battery that provides power to a device because Naito teaches that these elements are all known to be commonly used together and The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cho US PG Publication 2007/0154782 discloses a pressure relief mechanism having first and second portions and fragile portion having a shape similar to that claimed (please see Figs 2B-3C and associated paragraphs).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729